Re:DeepSeek: Advancing theorem proving in LLMs through large...
by llm_trw on Tuesday October 15, 2024 @07:59AM
(#41847620)
Doesn't matter what the granularity of your proof step us you still need to understand what that proof step does to be a mathematician. You seem to mistake syntactic brevity for semantic meaning.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:DeepSeek: Advancing theorem proving in LLMs through large...
by auggierose on Tuesday October 15, 2024 @01:39PM
(#41851005)
Mathematicians do very large proof steps, and so can the computer these days. If you do something like (proof by auto: thm_1 thm_2 thm_3) and it goes through, then I know why the proof works (because of these theorems), and this is similar to how a mathematician understands something. Syntactic brevity is indeed an indicator that you understand the proof. The better you understand something, the more concise you can formulate and prove it.